International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.

51
51-61
UDC: 005.334:504.4(560)
005.35
Review article DOI:https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2019.1.1.3

Natural Disasters in Turkey:

Social and Economic Perspective
Adem Öcal 1
1 Independent Researcher; Assoc. Prof. Dr., PhD
* Correspondence: ocadem@gmail.com

Received: 12 November 2018; Accepted: 15 December 2018; Published: 28 March 2019

Abstract: Turkey is located in one of the most significant active seismic regions in the
world. The country also is subject to many other natural disasters, that’s why, natural
disasters have been seen in Turkey forever. These events have caused physical destruction
to the death of more than 100.000 people and to the wounding of a lot, and shacked the
country’s economy in the last century. Disasters sources from geological, meteorological,
biological and technological sources, however, the results and effects of disasters involve
of interest to social sciences. In developing the social perspective on disasters, the main
factor is that disasters are effective on human communities. The development of individ-
ual, state and international cooperation mechanisms in combating disasters is a necessity.
In this study, it was aimed to review the sociological, economical and psychological ef-
fects of the disasters, and to call attention to social scientist on the effects of disasters in
Turkey.

Keywords: disaster; earthquake; social impact; flood; hazard; natural disaster; Turkey

1. Introduction

Disaster is defined as an event that transcends local capacity, requires na-

tional or international assistance (Hoyois, Below, Scheuren & Guha-Sapir, 2006),
causes physical, economic and social losses for people who cause great harm and
human death, and interrupts normal life and human activities by disrupting hu-
man activities (Ergünay, 1996). The severity of a disaster is generally measured
by loss of life, injuries, structural damage, social and economic damages resulting
from an event that is the result of a hazardous event. The severity of disasters in
Turkey is generally higher than the mean of the world. Because, Turkey is located
between Europe and Asia with a population reaching more than 80 million. The
growth rate of the population, undergoing a very rapid process of urbanization
in the last 70 years. The ratio of urban population, which was 26% in 1950, had
52 International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61

climbed to 60% by the end of the century, now is about 91%. Also Turkey has
high fertility rate (‰ 2,14) in the World (TUIK, 2016). This high-density popula-
tion brings many problems with such as the increase in the number of buildings
and settlements. However, the weakness of structures against disasters increases
the severity of possible disasters.
While the human factor is more effective in the formation and development
of humanitarian disasters; in natural disasters, it can be seen that natural causes
are more effective. The source of disasters can be originated from geophysical, at-
mospheric, hydrological, climatological or biological factor (Table 1) (EM-DAT,
2018).
Atmospheric events can be observed by humans and sometimes necessary
precautions can be taken without reaching the disaster dimension. The atmo-
sphere of our world is constantly monitored through satellites from sky and by
meteorologists from the ground. However, there is still the possibility of damage
from disasters. Some meteorological events cannot be observed directly because
they occur over a long period of time. For example, the direct observation of de-
sertification, global warming, climate change, and large atmospheric events such
as El Nino-La Nina are quite difficult. Such meteorological events are assessed by
their results. Hydrological disasters can be occurred after severe meteorological
events; however climatological disasters can be caused by lack of some meteoro-
logical factors or carelessness.

Table 1: EM-DAT disaster classifications.

Type Events
Geophysical Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic activities
Extreme temperatures, storms, open air turbulence, acid rain,
Atmospheric icing, sea and lake water levels change, frost, el nino - la nina,
(Meteorological) erosion, storms, air pollution, global warming and climate
change, ozone gas depletion, fog and low visibility distance
Hydrological Floods, landslides, avalanches
Climatological Droughts, wildfires
Biological Epidemic diseases, insect bites

Biological disasters occur more slowly than other disasters. This kind of di-
sasters can be controlled by observing the developmental stages of the harmful
cause. Sometimes biological and technological factors can bring together in some
biological disasters as Bhopal (Broughton, 2005).
International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61 53

Geophysical events as volcanoes and earthquakes take their source from the
depths of the Earth. It is quite difficult to determine the natural events of these
kinds and to determine the time of arrival. The lack of knowledge of the people
on the natural history of place-based events leads to the loss of life and property
in such disasters.

1.1. The features of disasters in Turkey

Turkey is a country which has a high average elevation (1132 m) compared

to Europe, with three sides surrounded by the sea (Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea,
and Aegean Sea). Mediterranean, Continental and Black Sea climate types (simi-
lar to Oceanic climate type) are experienced on the country soil. Also important
air masses of the world (Siberia HP, Asor HP, Island LP and Basra LP) confront
on Turkey. It is possible to observe 4 different seasons in Turkey within a year.
Turkey is constantly facing the danger of natural disasters because of its geo-
graphical features. Disasters such as earthquake, landslides, floods, avalanche,
drought, wildfires, extreme winter conditions and storms are seen in our country.
As seen in Table 2, the most common type of all disaster events in Turkey is the
landslide (32,7%) [6]. Climatological factors, geological structure and elevation
are influential on occurring the landslides in Turkey.
Moreover, since Turkey is a geologically young country the rock fall events
are often seen. Floods are significant natural disasters in Turkey (12,2%). The fact
that Turkey is a higher country than Europe; the variation of weather conditions
in short distance and time can cause floods. Another type of disaster seen in our
country is avalanche (3,8%). There is an avalanche in Turkey, especially in the
eastern part of Turkey. More than one natural disaster can sometimes be experi-
enced at the same time. Apart from the above mentioned disasters, other natural
disasters such as extreme weather conditions (1,7%) are also seen in Turkey (Ta-
ble 2).
54 International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61

Table 2: The number of death and injured people in disasters in Turkey

(1900 - 2018) (TABB, 2018).
Event Death Injured
f % f % f %
Landslide 16223 32,7 36 0,0 41 0,1
Flood 6069 12,2 232 0,2 116 0,2
Earthquake 3368 6,8 95544 95,6 47411 77,2
Wildfire 2256 4,6 41 0,0 42 0,1
Avalanche 1892 3,8 128 0,1 80 0,1
Storm 1816 3,7 264 0,3 326 0,5
Extreme winter conditions 845 1,7 143 0,1 944 1,5
Explosions 601 1,2 256 0,3 1352 2,2
Urban fire 608 1,2 57 0,1 250 0,4
Terror 441 0,9 202 0,2 548 0,9
Traffic accidents 1359 2,7 1128 1,1 7373 12,0
Other* 14097 28,4 1897 1,9 2941 4,8
TOTAL 49575 100,0 99928 100,0 61424 100,0
* Victims are affected by more than one event together or separately

Turkey is located on most important fault zones in the world. It is possible to

collect these fault lines in three main regions: North Anatolia Fault Zone (NAFZ),
South East Anatolia Fault Zone (SEAFZ), and West Anatolia Fault Region (Fig-
ure 1). These fault generations produce severe and deadly earthquakes. Furthermore,
the horst-graben system lies in the west of Turkey and has continuous earthquake gener-
ating capacity (Ambraseys & Finkel, 2006).
International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61 55

Figure 1. Earthquake Regions Map of Turkey (AFAD, 2018).

NAFZ starts from Van province in the east and extends to Tekirdağ in the
west (AFAD, 2018). This fault line is similar to the San Andreas Fault Line in
California. Turkey’s large and very populated settlements are located on this line.
During the historical period there have been devastating earthquakes in this area.
These are the important ones in Istanbul (1509, 1766, 1894), Erzincan (1939,
1992), Varto (1966), Bolu (1957), İzmit (1999) and Düzce (1999). SEAFZ is a
convex belt extending from Antakya to Hakkari counties in the direction of SW-
NE. It is seen severely earthquakes on this fault zone. One of the risky areas in
terms of seismicity in Turkey is Western Anatolia. The Big Menderes, the Little
Menderes and Gediz depressions; Izmit Gulf coast, Bakırçay Basin, Edremit Gulf
coast, Ulubat and Manyas depressions, Bursa, Yenisehir, İnegöl and İznik depres-
sions are located in this earthquake zone (Levy & Salvori, 2000). 96% of Turkey’s
surface area, 99% of the population and 98% of the industrial areas are located in
the first 4-degree earthquake zone considered as risky from the seismic point of
view (Türkoğlu, 2001).

1.2. Social, psychological and economic effects of natural disasters in Turkey

Natural disasters caused considerable loss of lives and property even in re-
56 International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61

cent history of Turkey. As a result of natural disasters, in the last century, approx-
imately 100.000 people died, over 61.424 people injured, over 108.573 buildings
demolished, and over 1.337.521 buildings damaged in Turkey since the begin-
ning of 20th Century (TABB, 2018).
Earthquakes are the most hazardous disasters in Turkey as in the past and for
future. During the known historical period, there have been major earthquakes
that have been damaging to life, causing damage and loss of property. The rate of
earthquakes incidence is 6,8% in the country, but the effect of earthquake is more
than this ration. In the last century, 3.368 earthquakes that have been damaged
and recorded in Turkey (Table 3).

Table 3: The number of damaged and demolished buildings in disasters in Tur-

key (1900 - 2018) (TABB, 2018).

Damaged Demolished
Event
buildings buildings
f % f % f %
Landslide 16.223 32,7 21334 1,6 3638 3,4
Flood 6069 12,2 62400 4,7 507 0,5
Earthquake 3368 6,8 1.238.599 92,6 104.136 95,9
Wildfire 2256 4,6 128 0,0 9 0,0
Avalanche 1892 3,8 1179 0,1 135 0,1
Storm 1816 3,7 3648 0,3 23 0,0
Extreme winter conditions 845 1,7 13 0,0 0 0,0
Explosions 601 1,2 226 0,0 1 0,0
Urban fire 608 1,2 961 0,1 56 0,1
Terror 441 0,9 14 0,0 0 0,0
Traffic accidents 1359 2,7 1 0,0 0 0,0
Others 14097 28,4 9018 0,7 68 0,1
TOTAL 49.575 100,0 1.337.521 100,0 108.573 100,0
International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61 57

Turkey, as it has been in the past, is suffering too much due to natural disas-
ters today. In this sense, the Gölcük Earthquake of 7.4 magnitude, which took
place on 17 August 1999, has been an unforgettable bitter experience for our
country. Only 17.479 people lost their lives in this earthquake and about 43.953
people were injured (Özman, 2000).
The feeling that someone who lives in an earthquake will feel the first mo-
ment is fear and panic. It has been seen that those who suffer from earthquakes
are concerned about their family members, are saddened about the dead and
wounded in the earthquake, and they try to make sense of life again (Cvetković,
Öca & Ivanov, in press) Fear, anxiety, guilt, anger, tension and despair are the
most prominent features of this period [13]. The psychological reactions of the
people living with the earthquake to the events have been researched about the
effects of the people on the depressed people after 1992 Erzincan, 1995 Dinar
and 1999 Izmit earthquakes (Karancı, 1999; Sarp, 1999). After one year of Göl-
cük Earthquake, 1999, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rate was found to
be 43% in the survivors (Başoğlu, Şalcıoğlu & Livanou, 2002). In another study
this rate (PTSD) was found to be 25.4% in the survivors living in a tent city after
one year of the disaster (Tural, Coşkun, Önder, Çorapçioğlu, Yildiz, Kesepara,
Karakaya, Aydin, Erol, Torun & Aybar, 2004). On May 1, an earthquake mea-
suring 6.4 occurred, centred in Bingöl and felt in the surrounding cities. Özen &
Sir (2004) measured the frequency of PTSD in Bingöl and found PTSD was to be
25% after 2 months of the earthquake.
Behaviourally, behaviours such as an excessive arousal state, sleeping prob-
lems, changes in appetite, speech disorders, increase in alcohol and drug use,
avoidance of certain stimuli are observed in earthquake victims. In a study con-
ducted 16 months after the 1992 Erzincan earthquake, it was determined that
the subjects living with the earthquake were more nervous and nervous than
those living with the earthquake (Karancı, 1999).
There are also some changes in social situations in people with disabili-
ties. In a survey conducted, 42.8% of the employees were employed before the
earthquake, while after the earthquake this rate dropped to 36.8%. The homes
of some of the victims were completely destroyed in the earthquake, and some
of them were damaged. Most of the earthquake victims have lost their electronic
home appliances (television, dishwasher, washing machine, oven, etc.), while at
the same time they have been deprived of their income from real estate such
as rented houses and shops. These people also stated that they consumed their
deposits in the banks after the earthquake. After disasters, a number of cultural
changes were also observed. The bonds of social assistance have been damaged,
and relative changes have been recorded in religious beliefs. There has been some
increase in divorce requests. After the 1999 Gölcük earthquake, there was a de-
58 International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61

crease in confidence in civil society organizations and in the sentence. Neverthe-

less, there is a growing confidence in civil society organizations such as AKUT
(Kasapoğlu & Ecevit, 2001).
Natural disasters lead to massive economic losses wherever they occur. These
losses can be in the form of direct, indirect and secondary losses. For example,
on 17 August 1999, earthquake-affected area is home to 23% of the country’s
population, and accounts for 34.7% of Gross National Product (GNP) (Pelling,
Özerdem & Barakat, 2002). According to statistics, direct losses in our country
are found to be 1% of Gross National Product due to natural disasters in our
century. Indirect losses are much more (3-4%). Only the earthquakes of August
17 and November 12, 1999 caused 6.1% of the country’s Gross National Income
(GNI) (JICA, 2004). It is estimated that the impact on the public finance of the
depression is about 6.2 billion dollars. This amount of $ 3.5 billion is tempo-
rary and permanent new residential construction and residential construction.
Turkey’s industrial and communications infrastructure has suffered a great loss,
and direct and indirect losses to the depreciated country’s economy amounted
to approximately $ 13 billion (DPT, 1999). It was emphasized that the economic
cost of Gölcük Earthquake in Turkey is 9-13 billion dollars (Özerdem & Barakat,
2000).
Earthquakes also occur elsewhere in the world and lead to heavy material
damage. For example, it was estimated that the property damage in the 1923
Japan (Kanto) earthquake was $ 15.6 billion, and that $ 17 billion in Italy in 1976
was $ 10 billion (Barka, Altunel & Akyüz, 2000).

Discussion and Conclusion

August 17, 1999 Gölcük earthquake revealed the disruptions and shortcom-
ings of the disaster management mechanism implemented in our country for
many years. With this earthquake, critical views on disaster management policies
in our country have been developed. After this date, it is seen that a national level
understanding of the need for more permanent and radical changes in disaster
mitigation in Turkey, rather than post-disaster wound policies, has been reached.
A reflection of the change in disaster management and planning in Turkey is also
seen in the field of education. More and more emphasis has been given to disas-
ter education in widespread and structured education. Disasters can be assessed
through different perspectives in different disciplines. For example, an earth-
quake is essentially a geological event; however, its effects are studied under the
disciplines such as economy, sociology, psychology, geography, history, and law
(Öcal, 2000). The development of a healthy perspective on disasters can eliminate
the harmful effects of disasters, or even destroy them.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61 59

Turkey is exposed to disasters today as it has been throughout history due to

its geographical location and features. Since it is not possible to escape disasters,
it is necessary to learn to live with disasters. While the formations of disasters
are generally described by science, they need to be addressed by the social sci-
ences in terms of their consequences and impacts. Disasters in Turkey also have
sociological, psychological, economic, legal, etc. It is understood that there are
various influences from the care and that it needs to be handled by the related
social sciences. It is impossible for a disaster management to be realistic without
considering the social consequences of disasters.
In this study, it was tried to develop a social point of view for the effects
of disasters in Turkey. It is a well-known fact that disasters in our world have
increased quantitatively and their effects have influenced wider masses. There
is a greater need for national and international co-operation in the sense of pre-
paredness and mitigation of disasters than ever. Because events causing disasters
do not accept political and administrative borders. Even states that are struggling
with each other may have to cooperate with disasters in combat.
60 International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61

References

AFAD. (2018). Turkey earthquake regions map. https://www.afad.gov.tr/

en/26735/Turkeys-New-Earthquake-Hazard-Map-is-Published
Ambraseys N.N., Finkel C.F. (2006). Türkiye’de ve komşu bölgelerde sismik
etkinlikler: bir tarihsel inceleme, 1500-1800 [Seismicity of Turkey and adja-
cent areas: a historical review, 1500-1800]. TÜBİTAK Publishing, Ankara.
Barka A, Altunel E, Akyüz S. (2000). Yeryüzü ve Deprem [Earth and earthquake].
Boyut Publishing, İstanbul.
Başoğlu M, Şalcıoğlu E, Livanou M. (2002). Traumatic stress responses in earth-
quake survivors in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(4), 269-276.
Broughton E. (2005). The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environ-
mental Health, 4(1), 6.
Cvetković V.M., Öcal A., Ivanov A. (2019). Young adults’ fear of disasters: a
comparative study among Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. IJDRR, 35, 101095.
Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı [State Planning Organization]. (1999). Depremin
ekonomik ve sosyal etkileri-muhtemel finansman ihtiyaci kisa, orta ve
uzun vadede alinabilecek tedbirler [Economic and social effects of depres-
sion-possible financing needs measures that can be taken in short, medium
and long term]. Ankara.
EM-DAT. (2018). The international disaster database, centre for research on
the epidemiology of disasters. (accessed on January 25, 2018), http://www.
emdat.be/classification
Ergünay O. (1996). Afet yönetimi nedir ve nasıl olmalıdır? [What is disaster
management and how should be it?]. Erzincan ve Dinar Depremleri Işığın-
da Türkiye’nin Deprem Sorunlarına Çözüm Yolları Arayışları (TÜBİTAK
Deprem sempozyumu) Bildiriler Kitabı (Der. Tuğrul TANKUT), 263-272,
Ankara.
Hoyois P, Below R, Scheuren JM, Guha-Sapir D. (2006). Annual disaster statis-
tical review numbers and trends. Univeriste Catholique de Louvain-Brus-
sels-Belgium. Brussels. www.cred.be.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). (2004). Türkiye’de doğal afetler
konulu ülke strateji raporu [Country strategy report on natural disasters in
Turkey]. Ankara
Karancı A. N. (1999). Depremin psiko-sosyal boyutlari: Erzincan, Dinar ve 17
Ağustos 1999 Marmara Depremleri (Psychosocial dimensions of the Erzin-
can, Dinar and the 17 August Marmara earthquakes). Türk Psikoloji Bülteni,
Volume 5, No 14, 55-58.
Kasapoğlu A, Ecevit M. (2001). Depremin sosyolojik araştirmasi [Sociological
survey of the earthquake]. Sosyoloji Derneği Yayınları, No:8, Ankara.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-61 61

Levy M., Salvori M. (2000). Deprem kuşaği: deprem nedir? Ne değildir? [Earthquake
zone: what is earthquake? What is not? (Translator T Gürer). Doğan Pub-
lishing, İstanbul.
Öcal A. (2010). Hazard education in 4th to 7th grade social studies courses in
Turkey. Social Studies Research & Practice, 5(1), 87-95. Retrieved from
http://www.socstrp.org/issues/PDF/5.1.8.pdf.
Özen S, Sir A. (2004). Frequency of PTSD in a group of search and rescue
workers two months after 2003 Bingol (Turkey) earthquake. The Journal of
nervous and mental disease, 192(8), 573-575.
Özerdem A, Barakat S. (2000). After Marmara Earthquake: lessons for avoiding
short cuts to disasters. Third World Quaterly, 21, (3), 425-439.
Özmen, B. (2000). 17 Ağustos 1999 İzmit Körfezi Depreminin hasar durumu
(rakamsal verilerle), [17 August 1999 İzmit Golf Earthquake damage assess-
ment], TDV/DR 010-53, Türkiye Deprem Vakfı
Pelling M, Özerdem A, Barakat S. (2002). The Macro- Economic Impact of
Disaster. Progress in Development Studies. 2, (4), 283–305.
Sarp N. (1999). Depremin çocuklar üzerindeki etkileri, çocuklarimiza nasil
yardimci olabiliriz? (The effect of earthquakes on child: How can we help
our children?) Milli Eğitim, Sayı: 144, 25–26.
Tural Ü, Coşkun B, Önder E, Çorapçioğlu A, Yildiz M, Kesepara C, Karakaya I,
Aydin M, Erol A, Torun F, Aybar G. (2004). Psychological consequences of
the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. J. Traum. Stress, 17: 451–459. doi:10.1007/
s10960-004-5793-9
Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). (2016). Fertility statistic 2015, http://www.
tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=21514.
Türkiye Afet Bilgi Bankası [Turkey Disaster Information Bank] (TABB) (2018)
Republic of Turkey, Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management
Authority. https://tabb-analiz.afad.gov.tr/
Türkoğlu N. (2001). Türkiye’nin yüzölçümü ve nüfusunun deprem bölgelerine
dağılışı [The area of ​​Turkey and distribution of population to earthquake
regions]. Ankara Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi
Dergisi, Volume 8, 133–148.
Yılmaz V. (2004). A statistical analysis of the effects on survivors of the 1999
earthquake in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal,
32(6), 551-558.

Conflicts of Interest: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”